all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Using a heart-rate monitor ... for the data-averse

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
I know S&S isn't built as a "heavy/light day" program, but I wonder if you can vary your heart rate ceiling based on how many sessions you get in a week. Say you only have time for 3 sessions one week, you might train to a higher HR since you are going to have more time to rest, but another week you are going for 6 sessions. Maybe you stick to the strict 180-age with one or two challenge days thrown in where you let your heart rate get a little higher. More simply, for any two consecutive training days, keep one of them under the 180-age to prevent overtraining. While it won't as optimal for aerobic training, it will maintain the benefit of preventing overtraining for those who aren't specifically pursuing the MAF goals.

Since I am recovering from a shoulder injury, I do like that the lower heart rate ceiling keeps me from over pushing myself as I am prone to do, and I feel very fresh everyday. I'm only a week in with the heart rate monitor. I'm swinging a 16kg bell (coming off shoulder rehab), and I tend to start a new set every 2 minutes. That's when my heart rate gets down to 125, and it tends to peak at 155-160. I'm 26, and I have just come off an injury, so I'm still peaking higher than I should.
 
Bill, non taken, not a problem.....I agree with you absolutely......in other words Bill I am not disagreeing with you!!...so you know we are, more or less singing from the same page.....BUT, a big but there capped up to make this very important distinction between HIIT and S&S, or alactic/aerobic

"and since aerobic-only training DOES NOT improve anaerobic (glycolytic) capacity;"

yes.....but it can make you more efficient.....rather than just blow out your anaerobic system...

"and since high intensity interval training burns fat and glycogen stores at the same time, the excess post-exercise caloric demand is quite large and quite prolonged making it a nice tool for fat loss; "

.....ah, here we are....the sticking point I think Bill.....the problem with cardio/aerobic is that it is crap for fat loss....yes, it is.....so therefore do more intense work in less time and burn more fat is the answer for fat loss, is it? No, no and no.....that implies no value to aerobic work and more value to anaerobic training if fat loss is a goal, which may well be true in one sense but is a health club perspective and wrong to focus on. Diet is the primary driver of fat loss and health is the big picture. Lean muscle mass is a part of it, as is sleep, as is stress, as is exercise. We get too attached to fat loss in training, overlook others. Train for strength and health, right? Aerobic function is by definition the biggest factor behind your health and longevity. Energy is the stuff of life, without energy you are dead. Energy is mitochondria. Without mitochondria death awaits. The better function of your mitochondria the healthier you could potentially be, the stronger you could potentially be and for performance...the better you could perform. You do not need to run a marathon to have healthy mitochondria, absolutely....you most definately do not have to run to improve aerobic function.

I don't want to come across too evangelical, that I've seen the light, like a reformed smoker, all smug and condescending. By the way, I am an ex smoker, I'm really not all tofu and Gwyneth Paltrow you know.......but your thinking Bill, is how I used to think, so please don't read into that....and by the way it isn't wrong.....just that there is a better way. It is the same thinking behind dieting - I'm fat, to lose fat, I'll eat less fat.....the low fat option. Works for some, really not so for many others. To burn fat I must work harder and harder......be that push push in high intensity intervals, or clock a s*** load of miles running.....the same thing. whilst true, a huge chunk is missing from the bigger picture.

And so to HIIT - what do we mean there? And to what aim? Short high intensity intervals are periods of work, periods of rest, ok.....S&S is a high intensity interval protocol, it is a 1:1 work rest ratio, well the goal is anyway, so if that isn't high intensity then I really don't know what is? So are you saying then, S&S is great as it is high intensity and therefore not aerobic.....as it isn't aerobic why treat it as if it is aerobic because it is about power development? If so, then, power training is something else...ie it isn't S&S, besides I want to blast my muscle glycogen to bits not develop my aerobic base.......Bill, can you see the dilemma here? S&S is a high intensity interval protocol but you don't have to use muscle glycogen to fuel it.....it is ultimately anti-glycolytic....for performance AND health...so that's qualify it a bit more....

Tabatas, ball busting fat loss intervals....2:1 work rest ratio. I like tabatas Bill. I like barefoot sprints on the beach feeling the wind in my air and going flat out. Now, I think I'm going fast, I am going as fast as I can....I feel young and vibrant, but really I'm not. I'm 51 and bald. To the casual observer it's 'look at that old guy running like a twat'.......At the end of the 4 minutes I am exhausted, my muscle glycogen is nowhere to be seen. I am deluded enough still to want to improve at sprinting.....the reality is I am very fast, for my age and want to be faster. I like speed and do not like getting old. So I do more tabata sprints...to get better at them....to get faster....develop more power, more strength. Is that possible? No....sadly...for me...it isn't. Nor is it for any human. All I will do is get better at improving my anaerobic system so that I could go for 3 sessions at a fast pace, rather than 1....with the remainder at a slow, exhaustive pace.....Why will I not get faster? Because I have adapted my anaerobic system to run tabatas best I can....to be more efficient at doing them.....to do them well and finish....I will have to slow down. The reverse of what I ultimately would like to do. It doesn't matter who I am or who anyone is....it is impossible for any human to run at max power for 8 sessions of 20 seconds with 10 second rest.......the outcome is better anaerobic function but a loss of absolute speed and power. You can't run that fast at maximimum. So I've ditched them....actually right now I'm not sprinting at all.....I train max sprinting in shorter bursts, 4/5 seconds and rest for 5 minutes or so. I'm doing all out strength training and power development. I'm beefing up my Pcr system.....I don't want to use muscle glycogen.....max power is for creatine. go and listen to Pavel on the podcast recently......creatine is for power.

So strength and power development, whether it is powerlifting, sprinting or hardstyle kettlebell swinging is about creatine. Endurance is mitochondrial health and efficiency. And that is S&S.....it is also HIIT....

Another way to think about this is to consider S&S from a different point of view...the tabata point of view.......just bust it out, until exhaustion. Pick up your goal bell and swing it in each hand 10 times every 30 or 35 seconds. And just keep doing it until it gets easy.......sustainable? No. Effective? No....if it works that way would Pavel not have suggested it? .....the key to this is to blast through your muscle glycogen, pick up your heaviest kettlebell and swing until you die. That is very simple and really quite sinister!

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

.....a quote from Gandhi which would have saved all my bad analogies.....

Bill alactic/aerobic is The Way...it isn't the only way but it is The Way. Heart rate monitor or not, maffetone formula or not, S&S or not. If it is for health and performance that is...if you want a beach ready body in 4 weeks....it isn't. By all means do other stuff...Dan John's park bench/bus bench analogy fits here perfectly...S&S, or alactic/aerobic is a park bench, sports conditioning ball busting stuff is bus bench...absolutely do them....just do them infrequently.
 
I read the forgoing discussion with great interest and wanted to post to express my appreciation for all the effort and research and selfless sharing that go into these discussions. I'm sure there are quite a few frequent readers/rare posters that learn a great deal from your generosity. Thank you.

aside: low tech option: I'm too cheap to buy a monitor, but am interested in targeting heart rate, so I set a metronome app for a targeted heart rate, then check my carotid pulse after a set, listening to the click - easy to feel whether my heart rate is faster or slower than the target.

Rich
 
Richard....yes, it just isn't really that accurate.
eg....swing, put the bell down...check your pulse for 15 secs and times by 4. You will get a average result for your hr in 15 secs. Don't get me wrong....it does give you a guide and I did that for a while too. And have done so in the past, with running and other pursuits. A hr is more accurate, charting a rise and fall, rather than an average count of the period you counted. I'm a cheapskate too...mine is from ebay! There is all the hassle of counting too and that itself detracts from your mission.....breath control.
 
Richard, since buying a heart rate monitor it is surprising how long after a set of swings my HR peaks. The trouble with your method is there is no way to know when to check HR.
 
Alister,

I am going to play devil's advocate here. Whether or not you agree with Bill's position I don't think he is saying to throw caution to the wind and go all out all the time. Bill isn't saying push till you puke. By setting target HR at 80-87% there is a ceiling to limit the extent a person goes glycolytic. I nearly said zone but avoided it. I may have misunderstood but I think Bill is saying to go mildly glycolytic. I don't know if training to 80-87% HR damages mitochondria. Is that the issue at stake or is something else? And if we are talking about sets of swings we will set the bell down while we are still below the 80-87% and the HR will then climb to its peak where it will remain only briefly before coming back down.

Just to be clear, I would like the more knowledgable people in this discussion to define the issues. Is mitochondria health one of them? Are there conflicting goals of developing alactic and glycolytic capacity? What would be the other issues at stake to determine if HR should stay below 180-age or 80-87% of 220-age?
 
Jeffrey - no I know Bill isn't saying bust your balls all the time....we are essentially saying the same thing but it is the terminology that, I think, is perhaps clouding the issue. Aerobic and the thought of doing aerobics frightens the heeby-jeebies out of everyone....I think there is something there perhaps conjuring up visions of pink leotards and Jane Fonda dvds maybe....and then cardio....and then quite often the idea that strength althletes don't do cardio, thinking that it is largely unnecessary to run 4 hours everynight (it is, I'd agree), so anyway HIIT is better than cardio because it is shorter......you know.....there is a lot of negativity around in strength training concerning aerobics and cardio. There is also this notion that because you lift heavy and your heart rate goes bananas, you don't need to do any cardio anyway.....

So when the idea comes into play that you do S&S whilst staying aerobic it causes a brain ^*#%.....no it is high intensity intervals...it isn't aerobics.....and then we are at the point of describing the same thing but in a different way. I don't know....power and mitochondrial function practice, doesn't exactly roll off the tongue....A&A is pretty much it.

Dipping very gently into mild glycolysis is fine according to Pavel but just don't stay there.....the sign that you are going into anaerobic glycolysis is a drop of power production.....STOP....rather than push.....we all agree on that. And so by defintion you are training A&A......if you push there, push more and do it day in day out...then that is the problem isn't it? We are all saying the same thing....someone who is cautious and STOPS may take longer to get there, rather than someone who pushes into it. The success of that approach will largely depend on the individual's genetics, lifestyle, stress, diet, whether or not they have a baby or teenagers in their household. And that is the point of S&S ------it factors in those often, all too often very important issues -----so you train at your pace, what you can do......the outcome is the same....The Goal.....And if you do get to the goal then will be producing power fueled predominantly by the pcr system and aerobic respiration with a little input perhaps from anaerobic glycolysis......I can't see what the issue is, to be honest.

Similarly you could do the goal in a muscle glycogen frenzy and collapse in a heap. That isn't the goal.......I feel that I'm going nuts....During the process of S&S you will no doubt fuel some of the practices with muscle glycogen, yes, yes yes......ultimately you will rely on it less.....because of....drum roll.....aerobic respiration!!
 
Bill, are you saying to go into a muscle glycogen frenzy and collapse into a heap?

If Pavel advocates dipping gently into mild glycolysis, is that best done by keeping HR below 180-age or 80-87% of 220-age? That, in my mind, is the crust of the biscuit.
 
Jeffrey wait up......Bill didn't say that, I did to make the point that Bill referred to earlier which was high intensity exercise burns muscle glycogen and has positive results for fat loss...I said that was true for HIIT but S&S isn't another HIIT.......which was the point I was making......(add: scream, stage left)
 
Alister, understood. But since no party to this conversation is saying that, why do we have to keep bringing it up? I think it clouds the discussion.

Let's quit talking about what we are not talking about, and talk about what we are talking about.
 
I know....we have gone in a full circle and back.....so to heart rate:
the options
1) none, rely on your perceived rate of exertion level
2) having trouble with that.....check to see when your power drops and be honest
2) maf formula
3) 220 - age and a percentage of hr max
4) something else

.....who knows. One of Bill's earlier points was other methods will vary....and for him it was 1 point ......so we are talking very fine margins. Does it really matter? No....does it matter to you if it helps you progress? Yes.

Here's a test. Work out your hr max and work at 85% of your max heart rate. Do S&S. Here is my humble opinion and a very unscientific prediction....you will be f*cked and you will not be able to maintain power output. You will probably rest a couple of days maybe? Maybe not. Anyway, next day, do S&S with the maf formula and stop when your power fades or you reach the upper limit.....or stop in your set, watch your hr climb in rest periods and rest appropriately for you. Then see which one you prefer doing 4 or 5 days a week.....you know like it says in the book! Or do another programme....aerobics or something. That isn't meant as sarcasm.......just getting back to being on point!
 
So if Pavel advises dipping gently into mild glycolysis, what would be the HR that best achieves that?
 
Jeffrey.....I feel like I'm not in Kansas anymore? Pavel, please help.....
 
I am just a simple man.

If I wanted to dip gently into mild glycolysis, would I:

A. Maintain HR below 180-age

or

B. Maintain HR below 80-87% of 220-age
 
which one for you do you think would be easiest?
How do you maintain a hr below 80-87% of your 220-age?
So it is below 80? Or between 80-87?

If you are seeking to condition your glycolytic pathway then by all means train at between 80-87%. Ah, but you are not, so by that method you want to train below 80% of hr max. Maybe popping over but coming back from that range......your 80% for your 220 - age is a hr of 133.

Can I suggest you visit the maffetone site because once you have your age formula it can be adjusted down 10 or up 5, if you have been training with no injuries or ill health.
As you are 53, your maf formula is 127.....if could be just that or 132 or 117, again depending on your health. Not wishing to state the bleeding obvious....if you are a robust machine then your maf number is 132. Your 80% 220-age is 133. One point in it. As maffetone arrived at these numbers because a lot of his athletes were not aware they were in anaerobic glycolysis - the whole point of his formula - as the 220-age did not reflect the training state of his athletes...ie it is variable depending on you. And athletes being athletes have a tendency to push themselves. So as his athletes were not aware they were in glycolysis, they trained for too long.....their health suffered....and their performance suffered. Why? ....and we are back again to a build up of hydrogen ions in their mitochondria.....which is why I think, rightly or wrongly, the maf formula is a pretty good, helpful tool for S&S. He also says that if in doubt due to rehab from injury, medications to use a lower number.

And on the subject of running again and long slow distance being aerobic/cardio nonsense or bad for your health......it is if you train too much in the glycolytic pathway. Slow, easy aerobic builds health.....building it upto your threshold develops mitochondria efficiency....according to maffetone and others, not me, I'm just a bloke....and that takes us back again, the second or third time now probably to S&S and good old aerobic and alactic power...efficient long lasting power. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.
 
Today was my 6th session using the heart rate monitor. I started last Monday (a week ago). I'm coming off of physical therapy for my shoulder and transitioned right into S&S with a 16kg bell for one arm swings and I'm moving from 12 to 16 for the TGU. I'm 26 and very scrawny but otherwise healthy.

Relevant to this thread:
My first two swing sessions lasted 20 minutes. The first session I was still going way too high (HR peaked between 160 and 165). The next session I let my HR get down to 125 between sets and it peaked between 153 and 160 throughout the session. While this is higher than the 154 I should get from the formula, I also wasn't doing any working through the high HR, as it peaked after the swings. My main goal isn't the aerobic conditioning. I probably could have waited one more deep breath between sets, adding a minute or two to the whole session. Regardless, each set felt very fresh and crisp. I pace around at a relaxed yet brisk pace with controlled, focused nose breathing.

I took a day off then did an unload day with two handed, 20kg swings (I've been extra cautious with rest days and unload days as shoulders get into action again). Again, the 10 sets took 20 minutes. Only three days in, but I started wondering if at my age I don't need to really worry about this slower pace thing. Thoughts of past shoulder injuries checked my impatience though.

The next day took 19 minutes to get through the swings, This was the 4th session in 5 days. This was one armed with 16kg again.

I took another day off, and then only took 16 minutes on my 5th session.

I just finished my 6th session in 8 days and I have felt completely fresh all week. Today the swings took 16 minutes. The swings feel great. Left shoulder feels as good as ever. I'm only a week in and my time has come down 20% from where I started, and honestly, I started with a slightly compressed time since my HR was peaking up around 165 for that first session. I've kind of been forced to check my ego with bell size do to rehab which has probably helped staying lower in HR. While I'm not strictly following Al's protocol (since I do get up to 6 BPM over on some sets), it is definitely a more aerobic pace, and I loved seeing the progress on my HR coming down with breathing. Again, the aerobic training isn't the primary goal, but getting my shoulder healthy and in action again is the priority, and the long rests certainly have allowed my shoulder to feel great even training more frequently than I ever did before. I'll be aiming for 5 sessions a week going forward.
 
Ladies and gents, remember that S&S is supposed to be repeatable from day to day = staying fresh = staying aerobic most days = passing the talk test right before the next set.

The talk test roughly corresponds to the AnT and that average intensity has been determined as optimal for mitochondrial development.

Occasionally push harder and test. A little glycolytic work here and there is beneficial to spike your hormones, condition the respiratory muscles, build character, and—if you are careful—to peak.

Different people will tolerate different amounts of glycolytic work, so better go easy.
 
Apologies if this has been covered in this thread - I got a bit lost reading it and so skipped to here.

Perhaps irrelevant, but I was wondering if anyone with a HRM has measured their heart rate after two solid swings.
 
Hello Strongfirsters! This is my first time posting to the forum, and just FYI I'm new to kettlebells - just started a few months ago with S&S after reading the book and getting instruction from a local SFG, but I'm making (slow) progress and loving it. I'm glad I found this forum to help answer questions and increase my understanding of the strong first way of training. I like the idea of being able to use a HR monitor as discussed in this thread to keep myself from pushing too hard with the swings - the talk test seems too subjective to me. Maybe with enough practice I'll gain a more intuitive "feel" for whether or not I should be resting more or less between sets of swings. But until then I think I'll try using a HR monitor to try and stay at or below the 180-age threshold suggested here. So on to my question, which coincidentally dovetails perfectly with Pavel's latest post in this thread.

He wrote "Occasionally push harder and test."

In this context, what might pushing harder mean in terms of heart rate when testing to see if I meet the 5 minute swing goal? Is this perhaps where a higher target HR of say 85% of 220-age makes sense?
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom